—
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
19th SEPTEMBER, 2023
SECOND ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 34 of 2023
Dr. Virendra Singh Chauhan …..Applicant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand. …..Respondent
Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Arvind Vashistha,
Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Rajat Mittal, Advocate.
Counsel for the State : Mr. M.K. Chand, A.G.A.
Counsel for the Victim : Mr. A.S. Rawat,
Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal,
Advocate.
Hon’ble Alok Kumar Verma,J.
Present Second Anticipatory Bail Application has
been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail under
Section 354 and Section 376 (2) (d) of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (in short, “IPC”) in connection with Case
Crime No. 344 of 2023 registered at police station Vikas
Nagar, District Dehradun.
2. The First Information Report was registered
under Section 354 IPC. The First Anticipatory Bail
Application was filed by the applicant for Anticipatory Bail
under Section 354 IPC. During the course of investigation,
Section 376 (2) (d) IPC has been added. Therefore, on the
request of the applicant, the First Anticipatory Bail
Application was dismissed on 01.09.2023 by granting
2
liberty to file a fresh Application under Section 438 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, as per law.
3. The present Anticipatory Bail Application was
listed for the first time on 05.09.2023. On the said date,
learned counsel for the State had sought one week’s time
to get instruction and learned counsel for the victim had
sought one week’s time to file objection to the Anticipatory
Bail Application. The date was fixed for today i.e. on
19.09.2023.
4. Challenging the said order dated 05.09.2023,
the applicant had filed a Petition for Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl.) No. 11555 of 2023 before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court. On 13.09.2023, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court passed the order as hereunder:-
“Inasmuch as the present Special Leave
Petition has been filed against the non-granting of
interim protection before the next date of hearing
i.e. 19.09.2023, we deem it appropriate to grant it
till such time. We are of the view that there is no
need to hear the respondents as it will take more
time apart from hearing an interim measure. In
such view of the matter, the special leave petition
stands disposed of after giving interim protection to
the petitioner till 18.09.2023.
We request the High Court to dispose of the
SABA No. 34 of 2023 on next date of hearing i.e.
19.09.2023.
The special leave petition is disposed of on the
above terms along with pending application(s), if
any.”
5. Objection filed by the victim is taken on record.
3
6. As per the First Information Report dated
27.08.2023, informant was working as a nurse in the
hospital of the applicant for the last one month. On
25.08.2023, she suffered a stomach pain. She was
checked up by the applicant (doctor) at around 7:30 p.m.
There was no female nurse present at that time. He
touched her private part. She informed senior nurse about
the incident. On 26.08.2023, applicant called her to his
cabin and molested her in the same manner. When she
protested, he threatened to terminate her employment.
7. Learned counsel for the State and learned
Senior Advocate appearing for the victim have opposed
the Anticipatory Bail Application. They submit that during
the course of investigation and after perusing the CCTV
footage, Section 376 (2) (d) IPC has been added.
8. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the applicant, contended that the CCTV
footage/screenshot dated 25.08.2023 (Annexure No. 5 to
the Anticipatory Bail Application) reveals that after
complaint of pain in abdomen, when the informant was
checked in front of senior nurse, a deep scar was seen by
the applicant and upon being asked she told that she had
to remove her uterus for some medical reasons and while
leaving from the applicant’s checkup room, the informant
was seen smiling and smirking and her facial expressions
do not correspond of abdominal pain.
9. Mr. Arvind Vashistha, leaned Senior Advocate
further submits that if such act would have been
committed by the applicant then the informant could have
complaint on the same day or the next day. The entire
incident was planted on the fact that she was told not to
4
meet the boy who came to meet her in the hospital. He
further contended that the CCTV footage/screenshot dated
25.08.2023 (Annexure No. 5 to the Anticipatory Bail
Application) has not been rebutted by the State or by the
informant. Applicant is a permanent resident of District
Dehradun, therefore, there is no possibility of his
absconding.
10. Personal liberty under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right
and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative
according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case.
11. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is
directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant Dr.
Virendra Singh Chauhan, he shall be released on
Anticipatory Bail on furnishing his personal bond of Rs.
30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating
Officer/Arresting Officer with the following conditions:-
(i) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any
inducement, threat or promise to any person,
acquainted with the facts of this case;
(ii) Applicant shall cooperate with the Investigating
Agency and he shall make himself available at the
time of interrogation by the Investigating Agency as
and when required;
(iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without
previous permission of the Trial Court.
12. It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or
violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the
5
concerned authority will be free to move the Court for
cancellation of the anticipatory bail.
13. Second Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 34 of
2023) stands disposed of accordingly.
_
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt:19.09.2023
Shiksha
